Lau Kong Yung v Director of Immigration

Last updated
Lau Kong Yung v. Director of Immigration
Court Court of Final Appeal, Hong Kong
Full case nameLau Kong Yung, an infant, suing by his father and next friend Lau Yi To and 16 others v. Director of Immigration
Decided1999-12-03
Citation(s)[1999] 3 HKLRD 778, [1999] 4 HKC 731
Transcript(s) FACV10/1999
Case history
Prior action(s) Lau Kong Yung v. Director of Immigration , HCAL20/1999, [1999] 2 HKLRD 58
Lau Kong Yung v. Director of Immigration , CACV108–109/1999, [1999] 2 HKLRD 516

Lau Kong Yung v. Director of Immigration was a 1999 right of abode case in the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal following closely on the heels of the landmark Ng Ka Ling v. Director of Immigration decision earlier that year. After Ng and the two prior actions in Lau, but before the case came before the CFA, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) of the People's Republic of China issued an interpretation of the Basic Law which affected the rights of Lau and his fellow applicants. Lau thus became the first case in which the CFA had to take into account an NPCSC interpretation in applying the Basic Law.

Contents

Background

Lau Kong Yung (劉港榕) and his 16 fellow applicants were mainland Chinese-born children of Hong Kong permanent residents and on that basis claimed to be entitled to the right of abode. The Director of Immigration made removal orders against them on the grounds that they had arrived in Hong Kong on two-way permits and subsequently breached their limits of stay, and did not hold certificates of entitlement to demonstrate their right of abode (which would include the right not to be subject to a removal order). They sued the Director in the Court of First Instance to quash the removal orders, stating that the Director had acted unlawfully in refusing to consider other evidence that they had the right of abode. [1]

Hearings and rulings

Mr Justice Wally Yeung of the CFI ruled for the Director on 30 March 1999. The applicants appealed to the Court of Appeal, which overturned the CFI on 11 June 1999. [1] Then, on 26 June 1999, the NPCSC responded to a request of the Chief Executive of Hong Kong and issued an interpretation of BL 24(2)(3) which effectively overturned the CFA's decision in Ng. The Director of Immigration, represented by Geoffrey Ma (later to become chief justice), then appealed the CA's decision in Lau to the CFA. The short-term effect of the NPCSC interpretation was that Lau and his 16 fellow applicants were found not entitled to the right of abode in Hong Kong at that time; the more far-reaching effect was that the CFA ruled that the NPCSC's exercise of interpretation power was not dependent upon referral by the judiciary. [2]

The court was unanimous in its opinion on the effects of the NPCSC's interpretation of Basic Law 24(2)(3). By majority, the court allowed the Director of Immigration's appeal. Justice Andrew Li wrote the unanimous opinion on the NPCSC interpretation issue, and the majority opinion on the appeal, while Justice Kemal Bokhary wrote a dissenting opinion regarding the appeal. Unusually, in addition every other presiding judge on the case wrote a concurring opinion stating they agreed with Li's opinion on the NPCSC interpretation, but laying out additional discussion. [3]

Outside views

Yang Xiaonan criticised two points of Li's opinion on the issues of the NPCSC's power of interpretation. The CFA, in accepting the NPCSC's authority to interpret the Basic Law, stated that it arose from Article 67(4) of the 1982 Constitution of the People's Republic of China. However, the CFA also stated that the NPCSC interpretation, being of judicial character, had a retrospective effect and was thus applicable from 1 July 1997. Yang sees these two assertions as inherently contradictory: if the NPCSC's power of interpretation arises in the way that the CFA claims it does from the PRC constitution, then such interpretations should be of legislative rather than judicial character, and thus are non-retrospective. He also pointed out that Basic Law 158(3) explicitly states that NPCSC interpretations do not affect judgments previously rendered. [3]

Danny Gittings of the University of Hong Kong criticised Li's opinion on the NPCSC's powers of interpretation as "unnecessarily broad" and a "pre-emptive cringe". He suggested that Li could have simply concluded that the particular interpretation in question was lawful, rather than state that the NPCSC had no restrictions of any kind on its interpretive power, a ruling which far exceeded what was necessary to decide Lau. He criticised each of the judges of the CFA, including Bokhary, for being "willing to make such damaging concessions in order to avoid another confrontation in China". He analysed the court's decision as paving the way for the NPCSC's second interpretation of the Basic Law in connection with Donald Tsang's appointment as Chief Executive for two years in 2005. [4]

Gittings' colleague Albert Chen was less pessimistic about the CFA's ruling. He admitted the possibility that frequent use of interpretation powers by the NPCSC could easily harm the autonomy of Hong Kong courts and public confidence therein. However, he pointed out that in Hong Kong, just as in other jurisdictions, constitutional law comprises not just the "bones" of the written text itself, but also the "flesh" of constitutional conventions which "buil[d] upon practices, habits, customs, and legitimate expectations" and "evolve gradually to supplement the formal provisions". In Chen's view, the evolving constitutional convention in Hong Kong seemed to be that the NPCSC refrains from interpreting the Basic Law on its own initiative, but only does so when requested by Hong Kong's executive or judicial branches. The conditions for the judicial branch to request an interpretation is delineated by the Basic Law and the referral tests defined in Ng Ka Ling, while the executive branch itself refrains from requesting interpretation except with significant support from the legislature or public opinion. [5]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Politics of Hong Kong</span> Political system of Hong Kong

The politics of Hong Kong takes place in a framework of a political system dominated by its quasi-constitutional document, the Hong Kong Basic Law, its own legislature, the Chief Executive as the head of government and of the Special Administrative Region and of a politically constrained multi-party presidential system. The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China is led by the Chief Executive, the head of government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Standing Committee of the National People's Congress</span> Permanent legislative body of the Peoples Republic of China

The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China (NPCSC) is the permanent body of the National People's Congress (NPC) of the People's Republic of China (PRC), which is the highest organ of state power and the legislature of China. Although the parent NPC has superiority over the Standing Committee, and certain authorities are not delegated, the Standing Committee is generally viewed to have more power, albeit inferior to its parent, as the NPC convenes only once a year for two weeks, leaving its Standing Committee the only body that regularly drafts and approves decisions and laws.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hong Kong Basic Law</span> De facto constitution of Hong Kong SAR

The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China is a national law of China that serves as the organic law for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR). Comprising nine chapters, 160 articles and three annexes, the Basic Law was composed to implement Annex I of the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration.

Andrew Li Kwok-nang is a retired Hong Kong judge, and a former Chief Justice of Hong Kong, who was the first to preside over the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, established on 1 July 1997. Li was succeeded by Geoffrey Ma on 1 September 2010.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Right of abode in Hong Kong</span> Right to live in Hong Kong

Right of abode in Hong Kong entitles a person to live and work in the territory without any restrictions or conditions of stay. Someone who has that right is a Hong Kong permanent resident. Foreign nationals may acquire the right of abode after meeting a seven-year residency requirement and are given most rights usually associated with citizenship, including the right to vote in regional elections. However, they are not entitled to hold territorial passports or stand for office in some Legislative Council constituencies, unless they also naturalise as Chinese citizens.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Provisional Legislative Council</span> Hong Kong legislature

The Provisional Legislative Council (PLC) was the interim legislature of Hong Kong that operated from 1997 to 1998. The legislature was founded in Guangzhou and sat in Shenzhen from 1996 until the handover in 1997 and moved to Hong Kong to serve as the temporary replacement of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong. It was established by the Preparatory Committee for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region by resolution at its Second Plenary Session on 24 March 1996. The 60 members of the PLC were elected on 21 December 1996 by the 400-member Selection Committee for the First Government of the HKSAR, which also elected the first Chief Executive. The official start date for this council was on 25 January 1997.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kemal Bokhary</span> Hong Kong judge

Syed Kemal Shah Bokhary is a judge in Hong Kong. He was one of three Permanent Judges of Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal from its inception in 1997 until he reached the mandatory retirement age of 65 in October 2012; afterwards, he remained on the bench as a non-permanent judge.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Court of Final Appeal (Hong Kong)</span> Final appellate court of Hong Kong

The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal is the final appellate court of Hong Kong. It was established on 1 July 1997, upon the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, replacing the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as the highest judicial institution under Hong Kong law. As defined in Articles 19 and 85 of the Basic Law of Hong Kong, the Court of Final Appeal "exercises judicial power in the Region independently and free from any interference." The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance and the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Rules set out the detailed functions and procedures of the court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rimsky Yuen</span> Hong Kong barrister

Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung is a barrister who served as the third Secretary for Justice of Hong Kong from 2012 to 2018.

Judicial review in Hong Kong is conducted according to the Constitutional and Administrative Law List. It comprises two different aspects: firstly, judicial review of domestic legislation as to their compatibility with the Basic Law ; secondly, judicial review of administrative decisions under administrative law.

<i>Director of Immigration v Chong Fung Yuen</i>

Director of Immigration v. Chong Fung Yuen was a 2001 case in Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal. Chief Justice Andrew Li, in the Court's unanimous opinion, affirmed lower court decisions that Chinese citizens born in Hong Kong enjoyed the right of abode regardless of the Hong Kong immigration status of their parents. The case touched on issues of interpretation of the Hong Kong Basic Law, both common law interpretation by courts in Hong Kong as well as interpretation by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) of the People's Republic of China. Professor Albert Chen of the University of Hong Kong describes the case as part of a "period of elaboration and consolidation of the regime of rights in the Hong Kong SAR", lasting roughly from 2000 to 2002.

Vallejos and Domingo v. Commissioner of Registration was a court case against the government of Hong Kong by two foreign domestic helpers (FDHs) seeking permanent residence and the right of abode in Hong Kong. Because of its subject matter it was commonly referred to in the media as the FDHs' right of abode case (外傭居港權案). Evangeline Vallejos and Daniel Domingo were two of five applicants who in various groups filed three right of abode lawsuits in 2010; the ruling in Vallejos' case was expected to be a precedent for the other two.

Fateh Muhammad v. Commissioner of Registration and Registration of Persons Tribunal was a 2001 case in the Court of Final Appeal, Hong Kong by a Pakistani migrant seeking the right of abode in Hong Kong. The case concerned provisions of the Immigration Ordinance requiring that a non-Chinese national's seven years of "ordinary residence" qualifying him to apply for permanent residence immediately precede his application. The unanimous opinion, written by Justice Kemal Bokhary, ruled that those provisions were not inconsistent with the Hong Kong Basic Law. The ruling in the case temporarily disqualified the appellant from applying for permanent residency, though he was expected to qualify again a few years later.

Wally Yeung Chun-kuen is the Commissioner on Interception of Communications and Surveillance and a retired Hong Kong judge.

Comilang v. Commissioner of Registration was a 2011–2013 case against the Hong Kong Immigration Department by a former foreign domestic helper who is the sole custodial parent of a child who has permanent residence status in Hong Kong. Comilang sought to challenge her own removal from Hong Kong on, inter alia, the grounds that it would effectively force Ahmed to leave Hong Kong and thus deprive her of all of the benefits she should enjoy as a Hong Kong permanent resident. The ruling against the applicants in the Court of First Instance had wider legal significance, as it established that neither the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights nor the Convention on the Rights of the Child are incorporated in Hong Kong law.

The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Basic Law Drafting Committee (BLDC) was formed in June 1985 for the drafts of the Hong Kong Basic Law for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) after 1997. It was formed as a working group under the National People's Congress. The Drafting Committee had 59 members, of whom 23 were from Hong Kong and 36 were from Mainland, mostly the PRC government officials. The Drafting Committee was dominated by Hong Kong businessmen with a share from different social sectors. The decisions of the Drafting Committee on the political structure and legal system of the HKSAR had a great impact on the politics of Hong Kong today.

The election for the Hong Kong deputies to the 13th National People's Congress (NPC) was held on 19 December 2017. 36 Hong Kong deputies were elected by an electoral college composed of 1,989 members.

Events in the year 1999 in Hong Kong.

<i>Ng Ka Ling v Director of Immigration</i> Joint appeal of three cases

Ng Ka Ling v Director of Immigration was a joint appeal of three cases decided in 1999 by Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal (CFA). Chief Justice Andrew Li, in the Court's unanimous opinion, held that mainland-born children of Hong Kong permanent residents enjoyed the right of abode, regardless of whether one of their parents have acquired Hong Kong permanent residency at the time of birth of the children.

<i>HKSAR v Lai Chee Ying</i>

HKSAR v. Lai Chee Ying was an appeal involving points of law by the Department of Justice over the decision of the Court of First Instance (CFI) to grant bail to the founder of Apple Daily Jimmy Lai. The Court of Final Appeal (CFA) reversed the CFI's interpretation of art.42(2) of the Hong Kong national security law.

References

  1. 1 2 [1999] 3 HKLRD 778
  2. ↑ Hong, Frank Shihong (January 2000), "Ng Ka Ling v. Director of Immigration. 2 HKCFAR 4; Lau Kong Yung v. Director of Immigration. 3 HKLRD 778", The American Journal of International Law, 94 (1): 167–171, JSTOR   2555240
  3. 1 2 Yang, Xiaonan (June 2009), 4.3.3: Lau Kong Yung and Ng Kung Siu: An Excessive Retreat (PDF), Ph.D. dissertation for the Degree of Doctor of Legal Science at the University of Hong Kong, pp. 164–169, archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-04-05, retrieved 2011-10-05
  4. ↑ Gittings, Danny (October 2010), "Hong Kong's Courts are Learning to Live with China", Hong Kong Journal, 5 (19), retrieved 2010-10-05
  5. ↑ Chen, Albert (2009), "The Constitution and the Rule of Law", in Costa Oliveira, Jorge; Cardinal, Paulo (eds.), One country, two systems, three legal orders: perspectives of evolution: essays on Macau's autonomy after the resumption of sovereignty by China, Springer, pp.  69–88, ISBN   978-3-540-68571-5
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.